[EL] Check out Could Pennsylvania Republicans end the electoral college a...
JBoppjr at aol.com
JBoppjr at aol.com
Thu Sep 15 12:37:33 PDT 2011
My memory fades as I grow older! Thanks for the correction. Jim
In a message dated 9/15/2011 3:26:04 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
rr at fairvote.org writes:
As Keith points out, voters were far more likely to split their vote
between parties in that era than they are today. The "bleaching" of each party
from the other party's terrain is the biggest reason for the polarization in
Congress that some observers wrongly ascribe to gerrymandering.
The partisan bias of the congressional district allocation system done
nationally is absolutely real, making the proposed change a non-starter at the
national level. Done state-by-state, it nearly always will have a clear
partisan impact and motivation, as we see in the case in Pennsylvania.
As an aside, Republican U.S. House leaders from 1953 to 1955 would be
saddened to be written out of history. The Democratic run of control started in
the 1954 elections.
Rob Richie
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Gaddie, Ronald K. <_rkgaddie at ou.edu_
(mailto:rkgaddie at ou.edu) > wrote:
Jim, it was called 'split ticket voting.' Up to 100 congressional
districts regularly split their popular vote outcome in that era.
But I wager you already knew that . . . :)
Ronald Keith Gaddie
Professor of Political Science
Editor, Social Science Quarterly
The University of Oklahoma
455 West Lindsey Street, Room 222
Norman, OK 73019-2001
Phone _405-325-4989_ (tel:405-325-4989)
Fax _405-325-0718_ (tel:405-325-0718)
E-mail: _rkgaddie at ou.edu_ (mailto:rkgaddie at ou.edu)
_http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/G/Ronald.K.Gaddie-1_
(http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/G/Ronald.K.Gaddie-1)
_http://socialsciencequarterly.org_ (http://socialsciencequarterly.org/)
____________________________________
From: _law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu_
(mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu)
[_law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu_ (mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu) ] on behalf
of _JBoppjr at aol.com_ (mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com) [_JBoppjr at aol.com_
(mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com) ]
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 1:59 PM
To: _tlb056000 at utdallas.edu_ (mailto:tlb056000 at utdallas.edu) ;
_rr at fairvote.org_ (mailto:rr at fairvote.org)
Cc: _ABonin at cozen.com_ (mailto:ABonin at cozen.com) ; _law-election at uci.edu_
(mailto:law-election at uci.edu)
Subject: Re: [EL] Check out Could Pennsylvania Republicans end the
electoral college a...
Taking a longer historical view, from 1950 to 1994 and from 2006 to 2010,
the Democrats controlled Congress. During that time, however, several
Republicans were elected President in the winner take all Electoral System. So
it is hard to say that the Republicans have a natural advantage when
elections are by Congressional district. If they did, why didn't they control
Congress all those years. Jim Bopp
In a message dated 9/15/2011 10:59:36 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
_tlb056000 at utdallas.edu_ (mailto:tlb056000 at utdallas.edu) writes:
I quickly read FairVote's report and I think the problem with the
conclusions rests on the basis of their comparison - rather than comparing the
congressional district system to a national popular vote, shouldn't you be
comparing it to the status quo? The report does show, I think, that the
congressional district system comes closer to the national popular vote that the
winner-take-all method we have in most states now.
A quote from page 10:
"In 1972, Nixon won a landslide victory over George McGovern. His popular
vote lead was 23.15 percent, which translated into an Electoral College
lead of 93.5 percent. Under the congressional district system, his Electoral
College lead would have been at 77.7 percent – smaller than with the unit
rule allocation, but still considerably inflated compared to the popular vote
difference."
Not surprisingly the congressional district system is far more
proportional (fair?) than the winner-take-all method. This is the rationale for
having districts in the first place - the results are much closer to
proportional than winner take all. I understand that Rob's preference is for NPV, but
assuming we don't get that would this be a move in the right direction?
If the Republicans do better in a congressional district system relative
to the status quo, I don't think we conclude that the system is biased in
favor of the GOP, but rather that it is removing some of the pro-Democratic
bias in the winner-take-all system. This, it turns out, is correct. Below
is a table showing that Democrats are advantaged in the Electoral College
because they win far more EC votes by narrower margins that the Republicans
do. Their votes are being used more efficiently and this is the source of
the bias.
Would it be fair if only Blue states switched to this and Red states did
not? No, but still the congressional district system is a move toward more
proportional results.
Number of Electoral College Votes by Party and Winning Margin, 1996-2004
1996
2000
2004
2008
Margin
Dem
Rep
Dem
Rep
Dem
Rep
Dem
Rep
0-5%
100
133
96
125
106
103
106
53
10-15
208
3
119
71
124
79
105
83
15-20
19
23
45
55
19
80
143
27
15-20
49
0
4
8
0
16
3
10
20-30
0
0
0
12
0
8
4
0
30-40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40-50
3
0
3
0
3
0
3
0
*Entries are the number of Electoral College votes won by each party in
the last three presidential elections. The far left column indicates the
margin of victory in these states. So the row label (0-5 %) indicates those
states that the Democrat or Republican candidate carried by less than 5
percent of the two party vote.
Tom Brunell, Ph.D.
Professor of Political Science
Senior Associate Dean of Graduate Education
School of Economic, Political and Policy Science
UT Dallas
800 W. Campbell Road
Richardson, TX 75080
_(972) 883-4963_ (tel:(972)%20883-4963)
On Sep 15, 2011, at 9:07 AM, Rob Richie wrote:
Jim, et al,
Let me preface my comment with a query. You were a leader in the push at
the RNC to oppose the National Popular Vote plan for president. Do you see
this proposal as an alternative the party should embrace even though it
increases the odds of the national popular vote winner losing the election?
I'll comment on both the national implications of this misguided proposal
and the state implications.
On the national implications: As Adam points out, if the congressional
district proposal were done nationally, it would have a decided Republican
tilt. Any presidential election in which a Democratic presidential candidate
won the national popular vote by less than about 3% would typically be won
by the Republican nominee. So rather than the "fair fight"that the national
popular vote represents (both parties have demonstrated an equal ability to
win the national popular vote over the years and ability to win by
landslide in good years for their party), it would be an election system in which
a Democrat could only win if winning by more than 3%.
FairVote did a useful report on the congressional dsitrict proposal back
in 2007, calling it appropriately "Fuzzy Math." See:
_http://www.fairvote.org/fuzzy-math-wrong-way-reforms-for-allocating-elector
al-college-votes_
(http://www.fairvote.org/fuzzy-math-wrong-way-reforms-for-allocating-electoral-college-votes)
Among findings:
* In 2004, only 55 congressional districts were decided by less than 4% in
the presidential race. It's hard for campaign activity to affect much more
than a couple percentage points, especially if the other side responds. If
done nationally, very few districts would be competitive, and very few
states would continue to be competitive. Most voters would remain as
spectators.
* The 2000 election distortion cited by Adam is instructive of the
Republican advantage in congressional districts today (an advantage I suspect will
grow after this year's redistricting). But even in 1976, when Democrats
like Jimmy Carter did better among white rural voters in the South, Carter's
win by more than 2% in the national popular vote would have turned into a
nail-biting 270-268 electoral vote win under the congressional district
system.
As to the query about how greater concentration of Democratic votes
matters, here are two revealing stats coming out of North Carolina.
* Using a state partisan voting index developed by Civitas that is similar
to the Cook Partisan Voting Index, the median district in the new North
Carolina house plan has a +6 Republican partisanship, up from +2 Republican
in the Democratic plan that was used in 2010. Note that in that 2010
election, not a single Democrat won in any state legislative district with a
Republican lean. And despite Republicans having a very good year, they did not
win a single district with a lean of more than +4 Democratic.
* Obama won North Carolina in 2008. But in the new congressional district
plan, 10 of 13 districts have a partisanship of at least +9 Republican -
-meaning that a Republican candidate will likely carry 10 of the state's 13
House districts even if losing the statewide popular vote by 17%.
Relating to Pennsylvania specifically: The only rational way to interpret
the Pennsylvania proposal is as a partisan powergrab designed to give a
Republican nominee a majority of the state's electoral votes even when losing
the statewide popular vote. Republicans are expected to try to cushion
most, if not all, of their 12 House incumbents. So let's say the Republicans
decide to sacrifice one incumbent and protect 11 seats. Just as the North
Carolina GOP did, they will do so by packing Democrats into safe districts --
let's conservatively say 7, although they may go for just 6. If it's 7
seats, then the Republicans will win 11 of the state's 20 electoral votes even
if losing the statewide popular vote by several percentage points.
Furthermore, it would be highly unlikely that more than two or three of
the state's districts would be competitive. So a state that drew such massive
attention in 2004 and 2008 would likely be effectively written off: why
would a campaign fight hard for 2 statewide electoral votes or 1 or 2
congressional district electoral votes if all of the electoral votes in states
like Ohio and Florida are in play due to winner-take-all?
So if I'm a Republican leader in Pennsylvania, I'm saying to the
prospective Republican nominee: "forget about our state's voters -- just accept 11
electoral votes and go spend your money and your attention to voters
elsewhere:"
Is this truly what they want? Can they justify it to their state's voters?
We'll see. But I would like to hear the opinions of the ardent opponents
of the eminently fair national popular vote plan for president about whether
this is their vision of a fair presidential election system.
- Rob Richie, FairVote
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 8:58 AM, <_JBoppjr at aol.com_
(mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com) > wrote:
Very interesting. If course, if this change was made, it would also
change how campaigns are run. In 2008, Obama made a successful play for one of
Nebraska's electoral votes. I assume that changes in campaign strategy
would mitigate this result in the future. Jim Bopp
In a message dated 9/15/2011 8:34:55 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
_ABonin at cozen.com_ (mailto:ABonin at cozen.com) writes:
Yes.
_http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/14/1016892/-Pennsylvania-Republicans-propose-awarding-states-electoral-votes-by-congressional-district_
(http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/14/1016892/-Pennsylvania-Republicans-pro
pose-awarding-states-electoral-votes-by-congressional-district)
Put simply, awarding electoral votes by congressional district would be a
disaster for Democrats. Democratic voters tend to be much more
concentrated in urban areas while Republican voters are typically more spread out.
That means that the average blue seat is much bluer than the average red seat
is red, which in turn means that there are more Republican-leaning
districts than Democratic-inclined CDs.
Here's one stark illustration. John McCain's best district in the nation
was TX-13, which occupies the Texas panhandle. He won there by 77-23, a 54
percent margin. By contrast, there were 39 districts that Barack Obama won
by an equal or bigger spread, all the way up to his90-point victory in New
York's 16th Congressional District in the South Bronx.
More concretely, if Pennsylvania's proposed system were in place
nationwide, Obama's 365-173 electoral college romp would have been a much tighter
301-237 win. Meanwhile, George W. Bush's narrow 286-251 victory over John
Kerry would have turned into a 317-221 blowout. And just as bad, Bush's
razor-thin 271-266 margin over Al Gore would have been a more comfortable
288-250 spread for Dubya, making Gore's "loss" despite winning the national
popular vote even more galling.
From: _law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu_
(mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu)
[mailto:_law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu_ (mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu) ] On
Behalf Of _JBoppjr at aol.com_ (mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com)
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 8:32 AM
To: _rhasen at law.uci.edu_ (mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu) ;
_law-election at uci.edu_ (mailto:law-election at uci.edu)
Subject: [EL] Check out Could Pennsylvania Republicans end the electoral
college as we know
_Click here: Could Pennsylvania Republicans end the electoral college as
we know it? - The Washington Post_
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/could-pennsylvania-republicans-end-the-electoral-college-as-we-know-i
t/2011/09/14/gIQAQUzUSK_blog.html)
Has anyone done any work on the effect of awarding electoral college votes
by congressional district would have effected prior Presidential election
results? Jim Bopp
____________________________________
Notice: To comply with certain U.S. Treasury regulations, we inform you
that, unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice
contained in this e-mail, including attachments, is not intended or written to be
used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of avoiding any
penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.
____________________________________
Notice: This communication, including attachments, may contain
information that is confidential and protected by the attorney/client or other
privileges. It constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed only
to the designated recipient(s). If the reader or recipient of this
communication is not the intended recipient, an employee or agent of the intended
recipient who is responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, or
you believe that you have received this communication in error, please
notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail,
including attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. The
unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this
e-mail, including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt by
anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is not a waiver of any
attorney/client or other privilege.
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
_Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_
(mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu)
_http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election_
(http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Respect for Every Vote and Every Voice"
Rob Richie
Executive Director
FairVote
6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 610
Takoma Park, MD 20912
_www.fairvote.org _ (http://www.fairvote.org/) _rr at fairvote.org_
(mailto:rr at fairvote.org)
_(301) 270-4616_ (tel:(301)%20270-4616)
Please support FairVote through action and tax-deductible donations -- see
_http://fairvote.org/donate_ (http://fairvote.org/donate) . For federal
employees, please consider a gift to us through the Combined Federal Campaign
(FairVote's CFC number is 10132.) Thank you!
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
_Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_
(mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu)
_http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election_
(http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election)
=
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Respect for Every Vote and Every Voice"
Rob Richie
Executive Director
FairVote
6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 610
Takoma Park, MD 20912
_www.fairvote.org _ (http://www.fairvote.org/) _rr at fairvote.org_
(mailto:rr at fairvote.org)
(301) 270-4616
Please support FairVote through action and tax-deductible donations -- see
_http://fairvote.org/donate_ (http://fairvote.org/donate) . For federal
employees, please consider a gift to us through the Combined Federal Campaign
(FairVote's CFC number is 10132.) Thank you!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110915/28605f6f/attachment.html>
View list directory